Communitarianism has become the focus of some debate and interest - but
what is it, and what implications does the communitarian agenda have for
education?

It
is helpful to separate what might be called philosophical communitarianism from
political communitarianism. Under the former category various social theorists
such as Charles Taylor, Alistair MacIntyre and Michael Walzer have been placed
although not necessarily by themselves. The best known advocate of the latter
position is Amitai Etzioni (1995; 1997) – and this view has found some
organizational expression in the United States, and in some of the rhetoric of
'New Labour' in Britain.

Philosophical communitarianism

The various writers that are grouped together as
communitarianism may well have expressed some disquiet about being so labelled -
and some of the conclusions drawn by others concerning their position, but it is
possible to discern a distinctive anti-individualism in much of their work.
According to Frazer (2000: 21) this involves three theses. That:

It is not the case that all there is in the world is individuals
(we have also to look at the significance of collectives, institutions etc. -
see the discussion of selfhood).

Ethically we need to look to the social individual or collective
and the significance of reciprocity, trust, solidarity etc. (what has sometimes
been discussed as social
capital).

Methodologically it is necessary 'to interpret and refine values
that are immanent in the ways of life of really living groups - societies,
communities' (op. cit.).

These three themes in turn generate three important inferences -
and here again Frazer (2000: 21-23) provides a very helpful overview:

Communitarians take issue with the idea that the individual
stands and should stand in direct unmediated relationship with the state and
with society. This is an idea that flows through a great deal of
contemporary legal and political thought in northern countries. Communitarians
argue for the continuing significance of status and local networks, and the
potential of other intermediate institutions (ibid.: 21-22)

Communitarians dispute the place of a free unregulated market
as the key social institution, and the idea that free market exchanges are a
particular right and even natural pattern of human relationships. It is
important to focus on the role of mediating institutions and norm-governed ways
of doing things (ibid.: 22).

Communitarians promote a distinctive set of values. They
value community itself, and tradition.
They will also argue for debate and dialogue about what constitutes the
significant values in a particular society - there cannot be a universal list
for what is important will depend upon the traditions and ways of life in that
society (ibid.: 22-3).

One of the interesting points of division or contention amongst
those labelled as communitarian is the extent to which they embrace liberalism.
While some, such as Charles Taylor would endorse liberalism in some forms,
others like Sandel would not.

Political communitarianism

Political communitarianism is something of a ragbag of
elements. However, a flavour of the political movement is given by Etzioni
(below).

Exhibit 1: Etzioni's political
communitarianism

We hold these truths

We hold that a moral revival in these United States is possible without
Puritanism; that is, without busybodies meddling into our personal affairs,
without thought police controlling our intellectual life. We can attain a
recommitment to moral values – without puritanical excesses.

We hold that law and order can be restored without turning this
country of the free into a police state, as long as we grant public authorities
some carefully crafted and circumscribed new powers.

We hold that the family – without which no society has ever survived,
let alone flourished – can be saved, without forcing women to stay at home or
otherwise violating their rights.

We hold that schools can provide essential moral education –
without indoctrinating young people.

We hold that people can live in communities without turning to
vigilantes or becoming hostile to one another.

We hold that our call for increased social responsibilities… is not a
call for curbing rights. On the contrary, strong rights presume strong
responsibilities.

We hold that the pursuit of self-interest can be balanced by a
commitment to the community, without requiring us to lead a life of austerity,
altruism, or self-sacrifice….

We hold that powerful special-interest groups in the nation’s capital,
and in so many statehouses and city halls, can be curbed without limiting the
constitutional right of the people to lobby and petition those who govern….

We hold these truths as Communitarians, as people committed to
creating a new moral, social, and public order based on restored communities,
without puritanism or oppression.

Etzioni (1995: 1-2)

There are different strands within this movement – and hence
considerable debate about the various elements that Etzioni lists, but the
platform outlined remains a fair statement of key positions. Community was to be
the central concept, 'supported by traditional concepts of the family, values
and education' (Arthur 2000: 14). It is this latter element that has generated
the most heat. Political communitarianism, it can be argued, looks to containing
difference and the cultivation of a ‘new moral, social and public order’ (Frazer
2000 brings out other problems). Sennett (1998: 143) argues that it ‘falsely
emphasizes unity as the source of strength in a community and mistakenly fears
that when conflicts arise in a community, social bonds are threatened’. Within
it there does seem to be a dislike of politics and a tendency to see great
danger in plurality and difference. Moral conflict is often viewed as
threatening the ability to establish community. An alternative reading (and one
that is adopted here) is that difference is good for democratic life provided
that we cultivate a sense of reciprocity, and ways of working that encourage
deliberation. The search is not for the sort of common good that many
communitarians seek (Guttman and Thompson 1996: 92) but rather for ways in which
people may share in a common life. Moral disagreement will persist – the key is
whether we can learn to respect and engage with each other’s ideas, behaviours
and beliefs.

Communitarianism and education

James Arthur (with the help of Richard Bailey)
has explored the implications of the communitarian agenda for education (or more
particularly, schooling). He looks beyond the political communitarianism of
Etzioni and others, to the concerns of Taylor, Sandel and other social
theorists, He suggests that the core ideas in the communitarian agenda can be
reduced to ten basic themes - all of which have policy implications for schools.

Exhibit 2: The communitarian agenda for education

James Arthur (2000: 136-141) argues that ten basic themes run through the
communitarian agenda for education:

1. The family should be the primary moral educator of children.

2. Character education includes the systematic teaching of virtues in
schools.

3. The ethos of the community has an educative function in school life.

4. Schools should promote the rights and responsibilities inherent within
citizenship.

5. Community service is an important part of a child's education in school.

6. A major purpose of the school curriculum is to teach social and political
life-skills.

7. Schools should provide an active understanding of the common good.

8. Religious schools are able to operate a strong version of the
communitarian perspective.

9. Many existing community-based education practices reflect the features of
the communitarian perspective.

10. Schools should adopt a more democratic structure of operating.

One of the interesting features of this
list is the extent to which it connects up with the concerns of educationalists
such as Dewey and
Lindemann. There are obvious points of similarity (such as the concern for
the school as a community, for promoting participation in a shared life, and a
concern for democracy). There are also significant points of departure -
particularly in emphasis. Dewey and others, for example, might well argue
that the fostering of democracy should be the central focus of education.
Furthermore, the less than tolerant tones of some political communitarianism
would run counter to an interest in dialogue and discernment.

Arthur (2000: 141-2) argues that there are a number of tensions and unresolved
issues within communitarian perspectives on education. That:

There is no comprehensive theory of education from a communitarian
perspective - there isn't currently the coherence or range to do so
(especially given the different schools within communitarian thinking).

There is a basic tension in much of the thinking around the threat (or
otherwise of individual autonomy and communal solidarity.

It is a public philosophy largely without a public - it is a discourse
largely conducted by academics.

There are a number of questions whether the themes outlined above
are either attractive to, or workable within, current schooling systems in
northern countries.

This said, it can be argued that the sort of themes that Arthur
outlines above provide us with a helpful set of questions for exploring some
aspects of schooling. Should we teach virtue - and if we are to - what virtues
are to be valued? What is the significance of 'character education'? To what
extent, and how, should schooling be democratized?

Conclusion

While some of the rhetoric of communitarianism has found its way
into political discourse in the USA and UK (especially through some of the
language of 'New Labour' in the latter), the way in which it has been reworked
has led to some policy initiatives that would seem to run counter to a concern
for the common good (for example, in the language of social inclusion around the
Connexions
strategy in England that in reality hides a deep individualization of social
questions). Communitarianism provides us with some interesting themes and
questions concerning education, but its political manifestation has looked
uncomfortably authoritarian.

Further reading and references

Arthur, J. with Bailey, R. (2000) Schools and Community. The
communitarian agenda in education, London: Falmer. 165 + ix pages. Helpful
review of the main communitarian themes and what might constitute the
'communitarian agenda'. Arthur and Bailey bring out some of the contrasting
'traditions' of thinking and practice and link these, in particular, to
schooling. There is also a discussion of the place of religiously affiliated
schools.

Etzioni, A. (1995) The Spirit of Community. Rights
responsibilities and the communitarian agenda, London: Fontana Press. 323 +
xii pages. Influential US text that argues for the balancing of individualism
with social responsibility. The section titles provide an insight into the line:
shoring up morality; too many rights, too few responsibilities; the public
interest.

Etzioni, A. (1997) The New
Golden Rule. Community and morality in a democratic society, London:
Profile Books. 314 + xxi pages. Interesting development of communitarian debates
based around what Etzioni sees as the two cardinal founding principles and
core virtues of the good society: social order (based on moral values) and
autonomy (or "thick" liberty). The "golden rule" is where these are in
equilibrium.

Frazer, E. (1999) The Problem of Communitarian Politics. Unity and conflict,
Oxford: Oxford University Press. 279 + ix pages. Very helpful exploration and
critique of the subject with some useful material on community.

Putnam, R. D. (2000) Bowling Alone. The collapse and revival of American
community, New York: Simon and Schuster. 541 pages. Brilliant setting out of
analysis and evidence concerning the decline and possible reconstruction of
civil life in the United States.